Talk:USS Jenolan
Spelling of name If the name was spelled "Jenolan" in the script, however seen on-screen as "Jenolin" on the model and "Jenolen" on a computer screen readout, and "Jenolen" is in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, why are we using the one spelling that is the least seen by people? I propose the article be moved to "Jenolen", and redirected from here. Aholland 15:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC) :I'd guess it's the same reason as the issue with Muniz that I brought up in VfD: the admins' position has been, in the past, to favor the script wherever there's an inconsistency. -- Renegade54 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ::The article says it in the background information: :::Named by episode writer Ron Moore for Australia's Jenolan caves (which are near Sydney - presumably this led to the choice of Sydney as the class name). The name was Jenolan in the script, however it was misspelled Jenolin on the model and Jenolen by a computer screen readout and subsequent entries in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. ::We are not here to repeat typographical errors -- Kobi 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC) :::Seems smartest to add redirects from the other spellings of the name to this one then, no? or do they exist already? Sulfur 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC) The article explains the reason for the discrepancies, but doesn't explain why what is seen on screen and confirmed in the Encyclopedia should be totally disregarded for purposes of canon. I always thought that what was on the screen is what mattered. There was a long discussion under the USS Chekov as to the script's spelling of USS Chekhov; it was decided that what is seen trumps what was originally drafted (which makes sense). So either what is seen on screen rules (as with Chekov), or what is in the script rules, but these two articles need to be consistent. I believe that the show as presented should rule, and so I still think that "Jenolen" is the "right" spelling. Aholland 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ::I strongly oppose the creation of misspelling-redirects, because it will create blue links instead of red ones and consequently assumed as being the correct spelling (like it is assumed far too often for Geordi LaForge, even though it is La Forge). ::Re: Aholland: this is an example why there can't be a uniform doctrine, there are always exceptions were common sense trumps a Star Trek Fanboy's lemming-style chanting of incorrect sources. -- Kobi 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC) But for the site to have any intellectual integrity we can't pick and choose from instant to instant what sources we like. Consistency regarding how to tell what is "real" in the Trek universe is basic to any rational approach to these articles. Saying "we always use what is on screen - unless we like what is in the script better" is just as pointless as "we always use what is in the script - unless we like what is seen on screen better". Either approach leads to inconsistency regarding sources and a total lack of ability to say what is or is not "real" in the Trek universe. I propose that this article be subject to the canon policy just like all the others: what is presented on-screen takes precedence over what is in the script for purposes of determining what the Trek universe consists of and how it is spelled. (After all, if people can pick and choose sources of spelling - screen versus script - that opens up Chekhov/Chekov again just like this article.) So unless there is some reason for this article to be outside the policies and practices of Memory Alpha, or unless people claim that there ARE no policies or practices, I think a rename/redirect is in order still. Aholland 16:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Here's another way of looking at it: We should treat both things the same if we hope to have any integrity as researchers. Aholland 16:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC) In keeping with the resolution on the USS Chekov, we should look to the Encyclopedia and to one of the names actually seen in the episode rather than to a name neither seen on the episode nor seen on the model of the ship. I intend to redirect the article to "Jenolen" in the next day or so unless there is some compelling reason why a script spelling should trump either of the two names seen on screen and confirmed in the Encyclopedia by the people who were then in charge of the names. Aholland 18:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC) ::We are not here to repeat typographical errors -- Kobi 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I agree; the typos, though, for purposes of the Trek universe are in the script. Even ignoring what is clearly seen on screen, look closely at the script itself. The spelling is inconsistent even there: "Jenolan" is used exclusively prior to page 17; "Jenolen" is used exclusively thereafter. "Jenolan" is used nine times in the script; "Jenolen" is used twenty-five times. So why is it so awful to have the name of this article reflect a name seen on screen, a name confirmed in the Encyclopedia, and a name used in the script itself nearly three times as often as an alternate spelling? So I agree that typos do exist: "Jenolan" is a typo for the predominent spelling of "Jenolen" and we should avoid it. Is there some other reason not to get the name right on this one? Aholland 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Given the foregoing and lack of any further discussion I'll do the redirect when I have a moment. Aholland 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC) ::::The problem here is that what was seen in the episode is supposed to be what counts, but the episode featured two alternate spellings of the ship, with the most important – the ship – having the spelling seen the least. However, the Encyclopedia – as well as and most other sources – spell it with an "e" rather than the correct "a" or the alternative "i". While it may have been the writer's intentions for it to be called Jenolan, that's not how it transferred to the screen, where things really matter. I think Aholland is right in this case, and the article probably should be called "Jenolen". Of course, one could also argue that "Jenolan" is the correct spelling so it should stay that way while "Chekov" should stay at "Chekov" since "Chekov" was merely misspelled as "Chekhov" in the script for . I dunno... what ever ya'll deceide is fine by me. --From Andoria with Love 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) :::::Someone should have checked the actual episode, as it is spelled USS Jenolan on the LCARS display... :::::--Jörg 15:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC) ::::Yeah... since the ship was canonically labeled as Jenolan, I'm moving it back to that name. --From Andoria with Love 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC) That's fine by me. I should not have relied on the article itself's statement of what was seen on the screen. Aholland 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Jenolan/Jenolen/Jenolin Yes, the three different spellings make my head hurt too, but the alternate spellings with redirects to the one chosen as the chief name description for the ship at this site should at least show up under a search too. It makes it especially confusing given that the Official Star Trek site uses the "e" spelling instead of the "a". --Globular Cluster 08:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) * USS Jenolin, USS Jenolen: there you have it. --Alan 08:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Removed speculation about shields : contained an oddity in technology – while the shields of the ''Jenolan held the Dyson sphere hatchway open, the Enterprise was still able to beam Scott and La Forge from it before it was crushed. It has been well-established that transporters could not operate through shields. It is speculated that the vessel's shields were only active on the sides that were holding the hatchway open. It is also possible that Scott or La Forge simply transmitted the shield frequencies to the Enterprise, allowing the transporter beam to penetrate the shields. Alternatively, the Jenolan s shields may have been weak enough or outdated enough that the transporter was able to penetrate them.'' I have removed the above as speculation. --| TrekFan Open a channel 09:31, April 7, 2014 (UTC)